Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Jan 5, 2005 5:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

Because this choice is left up to the taper/uploader.. and not all of us tapers/uploaders like their shows being shared in mp3.

You or may not like this but thats tough. If this choice wasn't given then a lot of tapers/uploaders would have stopped uploading.

That should answer your question :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Sean Murphy Date: Jan 5, 2005 7:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

[b]Because this choice is left up to the taper/uploader.. and not all of us tapers/uploaders like their shows being shared in mp3.

You or may not like this but thats tough. If this choice wasn't given then a lot of tapers/uploaders would have stopped uploading. [/b]

That does not make any sence to me. I think the Archive is an EXTREAMLY useful thing, and it is a wonderful use of technolegy to help the bands create a legacy of music. My problem that attitude is that a legacy of music should be open to the public. What good is a useless collection of info, without it being in an accesible format. Why would someone not want their tape to be circulated in mp3 format? If you could explain this logic to me, I might accept it, but it sounds like a pretty sorry waste of time without the free exchange.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffBrad Leblanc Date: Jan 6, 2005 3:29am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

Why would someone not want their tape to be circulated in mp3 format?

This is a touchy subject and has been hashed over too many times to open the discussion again here (use the search box to search for "MP3" on the forums). IMO, this discussion is dead - the choice has been granted to the contributors. Some will accept having the lossy files, others will not. We saw the value in making it a choice, so it will continue to be that way.

To summarize - if you were around before archive.org, bittorrent and widespread high speed internet - this idea would make a lot more sense - every once in awhile you would get Audio CDR's in a trade with an MP3 generation in them and you would know immediately due to the poor quality of the sound. It was frustrating. This caused a lot of the taping community to abhor MP3's and their impact on the hobby. Some still carry that disgust and don't want to see MP3's made from their uploads here since not everyone uses the internet to collect music. The fear (of those that currently opt-out) is that someone will unknowingly download the 64kbps MP3's, convert them to Audio CDR's and use them in a trade.

Bottom line around here is 'something' should be Archived.

Sean, I'm sorry you don't have the option to download lossy files for some of the recordings here, however if you have a particular show that you'd like to try you may want to ask if someone will help you with a B&P the lossless files or audio CD's.

-Brad

This post was modified by Brad Leblanc on 2005-01-06 11:29:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Sean Murphy Date: Jan 5, 2005 7:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

Well, I actualy did look back at the discusion, I don't fully understand the taper's right's issue, nor do I really want to. I think the taper should respect the artists, but I guess the listener should respect the taper's desisions as well. I belive that the p2p circulation of lower quality mp3's will exist, but the Archive's existance still provides the Lossless files fluidity. Even with 64bit mp3's, it takes 2 minutes to download each minute of audio on my connection. I am a musician, and I understand the desire for a lossless quality. I am sorry to open up old discussions that never lead anywhere, but I urge the tapers to reconsider their own tapings. There are a lot of arguments for making things easier on people like me who make $4000 a year, and can't afford a nice connection.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Skippy61 Date: Jan 5, 2005 10:00am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

one thing. Mp3's not so good quality yes. Do more people know what they are and will access them also? yes. Isn't it all about the music getting around and people digging the bands????

I know they're are a few i never would have heard if i hadn't D/Led them in Mp3 format, more than likely as i learn more i will switch over to lossless.

But as for now i'm getting some great tunes

Peace

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffgreenone Date: Jan 5, 2005 1:39pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

Because this choice is left up to the taper/uploader.. and not all of us tapers/uploaders like their shows being shared in mp3.

The bands also have a say as well - their shows are not available in mp3 if their policy forbids it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: auggie Date: Jan 10, 2005 9:34am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

Remember, mp3=stream.

I like to check out shows and get a feel before waisting the time of downloading.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Unstoppable Drew Date: Jan 5, 2005 5:47am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why No MP3's on some Artists

I just don't understand that attitude. There's nothing preventing someone from converting a show to mp3 after they've downloaded it. Everything I've put in the archive I've let them convert. IMHO people are much more likely to check out a new band if they can stream an mp3 or two rather than have to invest in a lengthy download.

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)